The relationship between mental rotations ability, eye movement patterns, and spatial task performance (535.7)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental rotations ability (MRA), a subset of spatial ability, is linked to success in anatomy and the STEMM disciplines. Like any ability, MRA differs in the general population. Some people can mentally rotate 2D and 3D objects with ease, while others have difficulty with these mental tasks. Previous research suggests that the cognitive processes underlying MRA are manifest in eye‐movements. However, research has focused primarily on describing how individuals of high and low‐MRA differ in eye‐movement patterns rather than demonstrating how knowledge of these differences can be used to improve observational approaches and learning. This study aims to determine whether the eye‐movement patterns (frequency of fixation, duration of fixation, salient features, and average visual scan path) of high‐MRA individuals can be used to improve spatial task performance for low‐MRA individuals. Undergraduate students at Western University will complete a standardized test of MRA (Shepard and Metzler Mental Rotations Test) while eye‐movement metrics are collected. The eye‐movement patterns of high‐MRA individuals will then be used to train low‐MRA individuals to improve performance on subsequent spatial tests. Results from these studies may be employed to guide the design and delivery of innovative eye‐movement based approaches to improve instruction in anatomy and other STEMM disciplines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".